Maxims Are Fitter Than Maximization

Maxims matter more than maximization. Much in life isn’t quantifiable, much less numerically maximizable. Words, logic, images, and patterns all can express more than numbers can.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Maxims matter more than maximization. Much in life isn’t quantifiable, much less numerically maximizable. Words, logic, images, and patterns all can express more than numbers can. Numbers and mathematics do different things in physics than in evolution and economics. Economists, perhaps “in slavish imitation of...physicists,” unwisely ignore that evolution fitted us for maxims, not maximizations, to manage life’s complexities, uncertainties, and contradictions.

Galileo in grounding heliocentricity, promoted a mathocentric physics. Since he declared his faith that “the Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics,” physics has largely seen math as the one-true-way, the universal hammer that nails all truths. But physics has it easy. Its math describes simple, consistent behaviors, reliable direct forces, and closed causalities.

Evolution, though its core idea is captured in Herbert Spencer's simple maxim “Survival of the fittest,” gets very complicated. Evolution is like language, an open generative process. The grammar (or rules of the game) of its processes is fixed, but it has open and indirect kinds of causality, that makes it less predictable. Evolutionary biologists use comparatively little math, typically for experimental statistics, rather than for causal equations.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Economics and the social sciences face trickier tasks than physics. They suffer uncertainties unknown in physics, of types that would frighten Heisenberg. People vary far more than atoms. Nothing in physics chooses. Or innovates. Or can so easily change its behavior. The math of the social sciences should be considered less closedly causal, less psychics-y.

Terence Burnham in a paper on “caveman economics,” finds it useful to write: “Economists may benefit by incorporating the insights of natural scientists”—especially distinguishing between ultimate and proximate causes. What makes sense proximally (e.g. a bird parenting rule: Feed any open mouth in your nest) can become ultimately anomalous (e.g. if others put their eggs in your nest, the preferred parenting strategy of brood parasites, such as cuckoos. Physics deals in direct causality, leaving no space for such indirectness and incoherence.

But life teems with indirect complex causes and seeming inconsistencies. Fortunately we are born “biologically prepared” to automatically acquire, without training, behavioral guidelines encoded in maxims or proverbs. These are anthropological human universals, found in all known cultures. Maxims are universal, and universally include contradictory pairs. “Many hands make light work” but “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Contradictory maxims survive where single rules of thumb don’t work. Lacking one true rule, we carry many and mix-and-match for particular situations. Physics’ capacity for universal mathematical laws, doesn’t yet fit all of life.

The mathocentric faith of Galileo’s disciples can be unwise. Wisdom means knowing how to choose rightly, for example picking the thinking tool fittest for each task. Economists who rely mainly on numbers to define rational behavior unwisely ignore that we aren’t by nature calculators. Math takes training. Maximizing narrow monetary self-interest isn’t a fit proxy for evolutionary success (for a highly interdependent species).

Numbers and mathematics have no monopoly on precision or truth. Words, logic, images, and patterns can be qualitatively exact. Only poor-quality thinking ignores that mathematics can’t yet be counted on to add up to the sum of all human wisdom. Reason and prudence dictate that we keep different kinds of thinking tools in our cranial toolboxes.

Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker Cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions.

Previously in this series:

It Is in Our Nature to Be Self-Deficient

Inheriting Second Natures

Our Ruly Nature

It Is in Our Nature to Need Stories

Tools Are in Our Nature

We Fit Nature To Us: Evolutions two way street

Justice Is In Our Nature

Behavioral Telescope Shows How Cooperation Works

Selfish Genes Also Must Cooperate

Game Theory And The Golden Punishment Rule

Revolutionizing Economics by Evolutionizing it.

Science’s Mobile Army of Metaphors

Greek Myths About Human Origins

Evolutionary Economics And Darwin’s Wedge

Economics vs Fiction on Human Nature

Is Economics More Like History Than Physics?

Jag Bhalla is an entrepreneur and writer. His current project is Errors We Live By, a series of short exoteric essays exposing errors in the big ideas running our lives, details at www.errorsweliveby.comwww.errorsweliveby.com. His last book was I'm Not Hanging Noodles On Your Ears, a surreptitious science gift book from National Geographic Books, details at www.hangingnoodles.comwww.hangingnoodles.com. It explains his twitter handle @hangingnoodles

More by Jag Bhalla

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe